CHAPTER IV.

THE FEUDAL CASTLE.

Feudalism is a leading fact in the history of the middle ages. It is characteristic of the social condition of Europe at that time. We cannot at all understand the state of things which then prevailed, unless we have a distinct conception of feudalism. It was a system which wrought most extensively and vigorously. It produced an immense effect in the hour of its zenith; it created an influence which lingered long after its decline, and which has not yet spent all its force.

We shall attempt to trace the rise and progress of feudalism out of the mingled elements of Roman and barbarian society.

SECTION I.

RISE OF FEUDALISM.

When the northern warriors subdued Europe, they divided the lands in the conquered territories between the vanquished and themselves, not forgetting, however, to retain in most cases the lion's share. The Vandals seized upon all the best lands in Africa. The Visigoths and Burgundians, who settled in Spain and Gaul, took two-thirds of the territorial property; but the Lombards, who descended upon Italy, more moderate in their desires, were content with a third part of the produce of the soil.

In the distribution of land among the victorious Franks, unequal shares were received by different parties, according to their rank or merit; but the chief, or leader of the army, had not the power of supreme disposal, and did not, as some seem to suppose, divide among his followers the conquered lands, to be held on condition of their rendering him service. Too proud a spirit of independence reigned among those fierce warriors to admit of any such arrangement. Each soldier felt his individual importance, and, when an enemy was subdued, looked for the share of the spoil that might fall to him, not as a gift from his leader, but as his own indefeasible right. Nay, he watched with the greatest jealousy the claims of his sovereign, of which a proof is given in the following well-known story. Clovis, king of the Franks, when plundering a church at Soissons of its rich utensils, appropriated to himself a splendid vase, over and above what fell to his share; but one of his soldiers, dashing it in pieces with his battle-axe, exclaimed, "You shall have nothing here but what falls to you by lot." The existence of a spirit like this was quite inconsistent with the supposition, that the leaders of the army established themselves at once, as the paramount lords of the soil, in the countries they conquered, and divided it among their followers, as among so many beneficiaries, who were bound to render service in return. The property acquired in the first instance by the followers, as well as the chief, was _allodial_, that is, independent--absolute. It was, to all intents and purposes a freehold, burdened with no other obligation than the duty of the owner to appear in defence of the commonwealth.

But though the barbarian kings were not the sovereign lords of the whole soil, yet they received a much larger share than any of their officers. Fiscal lands, or royal demesnes, were appropriated to them for their own use, and for the maintenance of their proper dignity. These were, in many cases, granted to their favourites, to be held under certain conditions. It is said that no obligations of military service were expressly annexed to these grants; but there cannot be the shadow of a doubt that some substantial return of that kind was expected from the persons thus favoured by their chieftain. Indeed, a positive proof that such was the case, is found in the fact, that under Charlemagne, the possessors of these estates were required to take the field in person, while the holders of allodial property were only required to furnish soldiers, at the rate of one for every three farms.

These estates thus bestowed by the barbarian kings were called BENEFICES, and were the germs of the _feuds_, or fiefs, which constituted the foundation, and which gave the name to the feudal system. Much antiquarian research has been expended on the origin both of the arrangement and the name. We are inclined to believe that the parent principles are to be found in the _emphyteusis_ of the Romans, and the _comitatus_ of the Germans. The word _emphyteusis_ signifies engrafting or planting, and was applied to property granted for cultivation. The property of the estate was vested in one party, and the usufruct in a second, who held it on condition of certain payments, and retained the use of it so long as the stipulated rent was paid. The relation between the parties seems to have been something more than the common one between landlord and tenant, even when the latter is secured in possession by the covenant of a lease, for a term of years. It approaches nearer to a copyhold tenure. In this arrangement, we see the prototype of the feudal lord and his tenant, permanently holding lands upon condition of rendering some acknowledgment of dependence. The _comitatus_ of the Germans was different from this. The word signifies a band of retainers who accompanied their chief in war. The union was voluntarily formed, but, when once formed, it was deemed disgraceful to break it. The favour of these martial adherents was gained or preserved by presents of horses and arms, and by rude and profuse hospitality. In this custom, we have a further prototype of the lord; this warlike band were attached to his person, shared in his quarrels, and fought under his banner; and, as the ground of their services, received from him certain benefits, chiefly the possession and use of landed estates. Sir Francis Palgrave is of opinion that the word _fief_ is a contraction of _fitef_, which he further supposes to be a colloquial abbreviation of _emphyteusis_, usually pronounced _emphytefsis_. "The essential and fundamental principle of a territorial fief, or feud," he observes, "is, that the land is held by a limited or conditional estate, the property being in the lord, the usufruct in the tenant."[1] And other antiquarians have derived the term vassal from the German _gesell_, which signifies a subordinate associate, or helper. The feudal principles and usages certainly sprung from the intermingling of Roman and Gothic society, amidst the convulsions of the fifth and the following centuries; and it is therefore by no means unreasonable to look for the seeds of them among the institutions of both parties.

Some have maintained that the benefices granted, in the way described, were originally revocable by the lord at pleasure, and that it was not till some time afterwards that an hereditary interest was possessed by the tenant; but Mr. Hallam, whose learning and judgment in such matters are equally admirable, questions this, and believes that hereditary fiefs obtained in many instances, from the beginning. Subinfeudation, or the parcelling out a territory to a number of under-tenants, was an early result, proceeding from the possession of hereditary benefices. Traces of this practice are found in the times of Pepin, king of France; they are more numerous under Charlemagne; and in later times they are so general as to prove that the custom was nearly universal. Thus two classes of fiefs arose--the _royal_, or principal fiefs, held immediately from the crown; and the _arrière_, or subordinate fiefs, which were dependent upon the nobility. The parties who had received their fiefs from the king swore allegiance to him as their lord; and they, in their turn, exacted a similar oath of fidelity from their own tenants.

Still, only some part of the property of a country was held on the feudal tenure; a considerable part remained allodial, or free. But what guarantee had the proprietor for quiet possession? A number of small landholders found themselves surrounded by mighty chieftains, whose estates were extensive, and whose power was increased by the number of vassals they gathered about them through the practice of subinfeudation. In an age when the spirit of justice was scarcely known--when law furnished no shield of protection--the freeholder was constantly exposed to the oppression of his haughty neighbours. If some feudal baron cast his eye upon the field of the allodialist, as Ahab did on Naboth's vineyard, it was in vain for the proprietor to resist. It was better to yield it up to him at once, as a feudal estate, and to occupy it as a fief incident to certain services, than to have it taken away altogether, or even subjected to depredation and pillage. Beside, in seasons of anarchy and war, when foreign enemies invaded a kingdom, or rapacious lords issued from their castles to gather a harvest of spoil, the possessor of an independent estate felt that if he would keep what he had, it would be better for him to put himself and his estate under the wing of feudalism, and thus secure the only kind of protection which the times afforded.

The incipient forms of the feudal relation arose at a very early period; but to suppose that what is called the "feudal system" existed then, is a great mistake. The state of things, designated by that appellation, did not reach its definite form, nor did its ramifications branch out to their full extent, till the tenth century. In France, feudalism had the deepest root, and arrived earliest at maturity; but during the ninth century, even there, we see it but gradually rising amidst the storms of anarchy which ensued upon the dissolution of the empire founded by Charlemagne. Feudalism was not, as some seem to imagine, a system introduced, at once, by the barbarian invaders, wherever they established their sway, but a form of social existence and power, which, though its parentage may be partly attributed to the German tribes, was also indebted, for its being, to causes which came into operation after the settlement of the northern warriors in their conquered territories; and, when it had attained its full vigour, it was very unlike anything which had been ever before seen either by themselves or others.

[1] Proofs and Illustrations of the Origin of Eng. Commonwealth, vol. i. p. 208.

SECTION II.

FEUDALISM IN FRANCE.

Feudalism, as already intimated, reached its height in France, where we find it in its palmy pride, during the tenth and eleventh centuries. Had we travelled through the country at that time, we should have been especially struck with the vast number of castles scattered over the land. Within them were concentrated the elements of strength. Feudal owners were the captains, rulers, and magistrates of the age. These important personages might be divided into two classes, according to the nature of the fiefs which they held. The holders of royal fiefs formed the first class, the holders of arrière, or subordinate fiefs, formed the second class. The former comprised dukes, marquises, counts; the latter included those of the lesser barons, who were denominated châtelains, as having a right to occupy fortified houses. The latter class of nobles were dependent on the former, and stood to them in the relation of vassals; they again, in their turn, had a number of dependents, subject to their authority, and owing them military service. Each of these nobles was a sovereign in his own domain, the fountain of law, polity, and order. His superior lord did not interfere with him in his internal rule, but simply required from him certain external feudal services. Sovereignty in France had sunk, at this time, to a very low ebb, and retained but a shadow of authority. The kings of that country were then little more than nobles, holding fiefs of their own, subject to no superior; over their own territories they had complete feudal power, like other lords, but beyond that, their authority was feeble. A tie of supremacy scarcely more than a name--a memento of the past, resulting from the original grant of benefices by the crown, alone remained.

The noble, or aristocratic class, was not limited by the rank of secondary barons, who had the privilege of establishing themselves in their own castles. There were other persons deemed to be possessors of noble or gentle blood. Every knightly dependent belonged to the privileged order. "The distinct class of nobility became coextensive with the feudal tenures. For the military tenant, however poor, was subject to no tribute, no prestation, but service in the field;--he was the companion of his lord in the sports and feasting of his castle--the peer of his court: he fought on horseback--he was clad in a coat of mail--while the commonalty, if summoned at all to war, came on foot, and with no armour of defence. Every possessor of a fief was a gentleman, though he owned but a few acres of land, and furnished his slender contribution towards the equipment of a knight."[1] Members of all these noble classes were eligible to hold offices of state; but none beside them had this privilege, except the clergy. These advantages being hereditary, all marriages between the noble and the plebeian class were forbidden. Thus an immense aristocracy was formed, having no sympathies with the lower classes. Such of the latter who retained the name of freemen were chiefly the inhabitants of towns; beside these, were a few scattered allodialists and rural tenants, subject to certain pecuniary payments. The inhabitants of towns, were least dependent, and suffered least from feudal oppression; freemen in the country were quite at the mercy of their powerful military neighbours. Next to these were the villeins, or cultivators of the land, who were attached to the soil, but yet were permitted to hold property of their own; and below them came the serfs, who were in a state of abject slavery. The power of the lord over them was so absolute, that, in the language of a feudal law-book,[2] "he might take all they had, alive or dead, and imprison them when he pleased, being accountable to none but God." In this degraded class, slavery existed, in a form quite as revolting as we ever find it in the worst days of the Roman republic; though, perhaps, the power of the master was less severely exercised by the feudal lord than by the ancient patrician.

Thus, then, all power, political and civil, centred in the feudal aristocracy. They only were lords of the soil, and rulers of the state; property, military command, judicial authority, were all vested in them. The "people" had no political existence. The popular element of society, as developed in the ancient world, as seen in the Roman commonwealth, had perished in the convulsions which succeeded the fall of the empire; and the popular element of modern society had not yet appeared. Aristocracy had little or nothing to struggle with, either above or below it. The principle reigned in all its power; it exerted an unchecked influence. Yet it was not the union of the noble class that gave them strength. The feudal lords of the same rank were independent of each other, and assumed isolated positions. Entrenched within his own fortress, each stood aloof from the rest; and when they did meet, it was not unfrequently front to front, as enemies in the field. They inherited and displayed much of that spirit of proud individual independence which had burned in the bosom of their German ancestors: each one relied upon himself rather than upon his order; and thus they greatly differed from the aristocracies of ancient and modern times; in all of which we see a principle of union at work--a measure of personal importance, derived from association with others of the same class, and a measure of individual strength and influence, derived from a feeling of common interest.

In the feudal aristocracy were included the higher orders in the church--the prelates, and the abbots of large monasteries. The fiefs they held rendered them to all intents feudal lords, and the spirit and practice of the system were displayed by them in whatever related to their territorial possessions. They swore fealty to the king as the lord paramount, and divided their estates among vassals on military tenures, while at the same time they claimed and exercised in their own territory the same sort of civil jurisdiction as belonged to the temporal barons. Their sovereign demanded that they should equip a certain number of men for his service in war; and hence it was customary for an abbot to choose some baron in the character of "advocate," to lead the vassals of the monastic fiefs to battle, and generally to protect the interests of the abbey.

Having presented this brief outline of the distinctions of feudal society, we shall attempt a sketch of the forms, relations, and usages of feudal life, as exhibited in France, during the period of their most striking exemplification.

Let us, then, suppose ourselves carried back, through the interval of some eight or nine centuries, to one of the provinces of France. Let the reader's imagination supply the place of those powers of enchantment whose existence was fully believed at the time of which we treat. We land in France in the eleventh century, and fancy ourselves walking on the banks of a river skirted by hills and woods. Yonder, on the summit of the rising ground, stands a stern looking castle, just catching the beams of the setting sun. It is a building of some considerable size, constructed of stone. The outer wall is flanked by towers, and a fosse, or ditch, runs round the enclosure, and communicates with the river. The chief entrance is through a gateway in the wall, guarded on each side by a tower, and spanned by a plain semicircular arch. On entering the gate, we observe the iron points of the immense portcullis ready to fall, in case of the fortress being attacked. On entering the castle-yard, the lofty keep stands before us, appropriated as the residence of the feudal owner and his family. It is the very type of stability, but has no pretensions to architectural taste and display. Safety, not elegance, is what the lord of this rough dwelling regards. Many of the apartments in the keep are small, and all are comfortless. The windows are mere loopholes, through which the light of heaven struggles for admission. The great hall is the chief room in the baronial residence, where, seated on the dais at the upper end, the lordly owner presides at the table of his family and household, and sometimes entertains his guests with banquets and festivities, in accordance with the character of the age. Rude, for the most part, is the furniture which even the best of the apartments contain, and when the nearest approach is made to magnificence, there is little of ease or comfort associated with it. Let us ascend the battlements of the tower, and look over the surrounding country, diversified by field and flood, all of which, far as the eye can reach, and far beyond, is subject to the owner of this castle. Gazing on the prospect, we at length perceive the gleaming of lances among the trees that skirt the road up to the barbican, or entrance of the fortress; a band of horsemen, some in plain mailed armour, ride up to the gate. It is the lord and his retinue, just returned from the sovereign's court, where he has been doing homage for his barony.

It was a scene of splendour, characteristic of the times, which he witnessed there. At two seasons of the year, Easter and Christmas, the French king holds his court, when he appears robed in his regal mantle, glittering with gold, and adorned with his richly-jewelled crown. These occasions are made choice of for a display of royal magnificence before the vast crowd of barons, prelates, and state officers. The monarch entertains them with feasts, and bestows on them rich suits of raiment, (_livrées_--liveries,) suited to their rank and the season of the year. The king sits at table with his court, and is waited on by the great officers of the household: other acts of condescension and liberality are performed. Gifts are bestowed upon the royal favourites; heralds are sent among the concourse gathered together by the pageantries of the occasion, to shout the well-known "largesse;" and hanaps (cups) full of silver are scattered among the people.[3]

From such a scene has yonder baron just returned, and there, by a significant ceremony, he has sealed the feudal compact with his sovereign as liege lord. He has been doing homage and swearing fealty. His head was uncovered, his belt was ungirt, his sword and his spurs laid aside, while, kneeling, he placed his clasped hands within those of his lord, and swore to serve him with life and limb, and worldly honour, faithfully and loyally for ever. This done, the monarch, on his part, accepted the baron as his vassal, promised to protect his property and his person, and then sealed the compact with a royal kiss. Connected with all this was the act of investiture, by which the baron became possessed of his lands; it consisted in the monarch's delivering to him some type of the property, such as a stone, or the branch of a tree. A relief, as it is called--a sum equal to one year's produce of the estate--was paid at the time of the investiture. He now enters on his lordship over the surrounding domain. As we have already intimated, it is very extensive. It contains several other castles, inhabited by the holders of arriere fiefs. Over all the inhabitants of that territory, he is the ruler. His authority is real, while that of the king over him is merely nominal. He is bound by no laws which his sovereign may make, unless he give his consent; and it is very probable that he will never attend any of the royal councils, and, therefore, will not be brought under any legal obligation to regard the statutes enacted. He is subject to no taxes whatever--feudal aids, like those which we shall presently notice, as payable to himself from his vassals, are all the pecuniary tributes which he owes to his prince. Military service is the chief thing which he is required to render. The sovereign has no power over the baron's territory, either legislative or judicial; and the provinces of France are in truth separate states, among which a loose sort of federative connexion exists, at the head of which the monarch appears possessed of nominal, rather than virtual sovereignty. There are, however, certain moral obligations which ran through all the grades of the feudal relation, which he is bound by honour to observe.

He is bound not to divulge any secret with which his lord intrusts him, nor to conceal from him the traitorous designs of his enemies, nor to injure his person or property, nor to violate the honour of any of his family. Breaches of fidelity, in these respects, are deemed acts of the highest treason. Moreover, he is under obligation to give up his horse to his lord, in case he is dismounted in battle--to fight by his side to the last, and to go into captivity as a hostage for him when taken prisoner.

We have seen that the baron is supreme lord over the whole of his own territory; all the minor barons, knights, and tenants of every description are his vassals. They hold their lands of him on feudal conditions. He renders them protection, and they return allegiance and service. Without going so far as one of the castles held by the subordinate nobles in his domain, let us look a little at the relation borne to him by a neighbouring tenant, who holds what is termed a knight's fee, or such an extent of land as is sufficient to maintain a man-at-arms as well as his horse. An old vassal of that class, who has long tenanted the little estate which lies on the bank of the river, at no great distance from the castle, has lately died, and the property now comes to the eldest son; for, whatever might be the original nature of fiefs, whether revocable at pleasure or not, they have long since become, not merely estates for life, but hereditary possessions. The young man cannot enter on the enjoyment of the paternal lands without doing homage to his lord, and receiving investiture at his hands. He therefore enters the baron's presence, and passes through a ceremony similar to that which was performed a little while ago, when the baron himself became the vassal of his sovereign. Connected with the proceeding is the payment of the relief, which in this case, as in the former, amounts to one year's produce of the land. He is now in full possession of his fief, and may go his way and inherit the paternal domain.

Other pecuniary payments, in the shape of aids, as they are called, may, under certain circumstances, be exacted from the tenant. Whenever the baron's daughter, whom we saw just now walking on the parapet of the castle, her half-drawn veil blown aside by the evening breeze, shall be married to the young count, whom she was watching as he kissed and waved his hand on his prancing steed, and then vanished among the trees--whenever the eldest son, the heir of his father's estates and honours, shall be made a knight--or whenever it shall happen that the baron himself is taken captive, and a ransom is demanded for his release, the tenant will be bound to contribute pecuniary aids to his lord, which aids appear to be unfixed in their amount, and to depend much on the arbitrary will of the exactor.

Soon a quarrel breaks out between the baron and another noble, and as there is no common jurisdiction to decide the matter, in these times, when the royal authority over its vassals has sunk into utter inefficiency, an appeal is made to arms. It is one of the savage but boasted rights of the barons, that they are at liberty thus to settle their disputes by the sword. The vassals must be armed to attend their lord to the field, and, therefore, the young knight must mount his horse and follow his feudal master to the scene of conflict. Forty days' service may be demanded from all who hold a knight's fee; but the law as to the distance to which they are bound to follow their lord, is by no means fixed: according to the usage, in some baronies, the vassal is not bound to go beyond the limits of the lordship; in other cases, he must follow wherever his superior may lead, provided it be not more than a day's journey from home. Upon the knights in this barony, we will suppose, it is obligatory to attend upon their suzerain to a much greater distance. The battle has been fought--the victory gained: and now the knight returns to his home, and suspends his shield and helmet in the paternal hall.

Ere long, he receives another summons, not to perform the service of a soldier, but to discharge the functions of a judge. It has been noticed already that the baron has a legislative and judicial authority over his own territories; but it is necessary that his knightly vassals, who are peers of his court, should attend to aid his councils, and to unite with him in the decision of such cases as may be submitted to his tribunal. The assembled vassals may be seen standing about that little mound of earth in the court-yard, which is the place of justice, and there our young knight mingles among them. By this baron's court is possessed the power of life and death--or _la haute justice_, as it is called--a prerogative not confined to barons of the highest class, but extended to all châtelains, or possessors of castles, and sometimes even to the inferior nobility; an odd distinction, however, is kept up among them, in the form of the instrument of death which they employ, for the baron's gallows may have three posts, or supporters, the châtelains but two, and the inferior lord only one.

In the present instance, the court is summoned to determine a case of disputed civil right between two tenants. It is difficult to decide the point: the defendant impugns the statement of the plaintiff, declares him perjured, and, throwing down his gage, appeals to the judgment of God, and claims trial by combat. This practice has succeeded the trial by ordeal, and is of the same absurd and cruel character; for the man who, perhaps, has already been deprived of his rights, is now in danger of being deprived of life. The privilege of making this appeal extends still further, and even were the case adjudged by the baron's court, the party who conceived he had suffered wrong, might call his judges into the field, and decide the question by the sword. The wager of battle just thrown down by the defendant is accepted by his adversary, and the day of combat is appointed by the baron. They are to meet on horseback, accoutred as knights, for they are of gentle blood--were they plebeians, they would be armed with club and target. They must fight till one party is slain or cries for mercy. In the latter case the person who gives in will lose his cause, and be further subject to a fine. Women, ecclesiastics, and men above sixty years of age, may employ champions to assert their cause in the field of combat; but should the proxy yield, he is liable to have his right hand cut off.

One of the tenants of the baron wishes to part with his lands to a stranger, in other words, to alienate his fief. The assent of his lord is requisite. He has received his fief, it is supposed, for reasons relating to himself and family, at least his heart and arm are bound to his superior, and his service is not to be changed for that of another, who might be unwilling or unable to render it. By the law of France, the lord is entitled, upon every alienation made by the tenant, either to redeem the fief, by paying the purchase-money, or to claim a certain part of the value, by way of fine upon the change of tenancy.

Another event occurs. An old vassal dies, and leaves no one to inherit his lands. What becomes of his estate? It is _escheated_, to use the legal phrase, that is, it reverts to the lord. He is the fountain whence property and power emanate, and the reservoir to which, under these circumstances, they return.

The fiefs now described are regular and military; but before we leave the baron's domains we must glance at another development of the feudal principle. Among the horsemen whom we saw accompanying the baron to the castle there were certain retainers, holding land upon conditions different from those which we have just enumerated: and there are others filling domestic offices in his household, who, on that tenure, hold certain estates. Among the former, are the baron's marshal and master of the horse, who, by filling such offices, secure possession of some of the neighbouring fields. Among the latter are his cup-bearer and steward, who swell his retinue on state occasions, and receive their reward in landed property. By keeping up this kind of pomp, the baron emulates the splendour of the sovereign. Mechanical arts, also, are carried on in the castle, (coining money, for instance, which is one of the baronial rights,) and the workmen engaged in such occupations, like the rest of the baron's dependents, are repaid for their skill and toil by receiving lands on condition of their rendering these useful services.

Feudalism has also extended its influence over other persons than warriors and domestics, and over other things than landed estates. The fisherman mooring his bark on yonder bank of the river, and throwing out his nets, is a vassal of the lord, and holds as a fief the right of fishing in the stream, for which he pays certain dues; and the woodman, whose axe resounds in the neighbouring forest, possesses the right of cutting down the trees, upon condition of rendering some feudal service. The system has entered the church, and the priest of the village pays to his ecclesiastical superior an acknowledgment for the revenues he receives from baptisms, marriages, and the churching of women. In fact, society is pervaded by the spirit of feudalism. The state, the church, every thing takes a feudal form.

Such was feudalism in France, and its leading features are to be traced in the state of things prevalent in other European countries--in Germany, Spain, Italy, and England. The modifications it received, in each of these countries, we have not space to describe; but a brief account of the form which it took in our own land ought not to be omitted.

[1] Hallam, Middle Ages.

[2] Beaumanoir.

[3] Du Cange, sur Joinville, Dies. 5.

SECTION III.

MODIFICATION OF THE SYSTEM IN ENGLAND.

It was transplanted hither from Normandy, by William the Conqueror. Some customs of a feudal character existed here among our Anglo-Saxon ancestry, but they were not moulded into a system. The strong arm of William bent the English constitution into the feudal shape; but, happily, it had an elasticity as great as that of his own bow, and at length regained its wonted liberty. He took care to employ feudalism so as to make it subservient, as much as possible, to the establishment of his own authority, and so as to avoid the evils by which it beset and limited the French monarchy. In France the barons were almost independent sovereigns, and the king had but little power, save in his own immediate domains. But when William divided the broad lands of England among his followers, he innovated upon the French system. In France, it was held as a doctrine, that an oath of allegiance was due from the vassal to his immediate lord, and to no other. But William, as sagacious in the cabinet as he was valorous in the field, required that all the land-owners of England, whether sub-tenants, or tenants in chief, should swear fealty to him as their sovereign. In England, then, the vassal was not exclusively dependent on his lord; he was dependent also on his prince; hence, allegiance was divided, and consequently the barons' power was lessened. The judicial institutions of England were also different from those of France. In the latter country, the baron was the chief justice in his own province, and all were bound to submit to his authority; but in England, besides the baron's court, there were the old Saxon county courts, where the freeholders and the barons were required to assist the sheriffs in the administration of justice; and, supreme over the whole, there was the king's court, (whose judges were afterwards made itinerant,) appointed to give sentence even among the barons, and to receive appeals from the courts below; so that all judicial power was gradually drawn from the Anglo-Norman barons, and grasped by the strong hand of royalty. It is further to be observed, that the largest fiefs under the English crown, were far inferior in extent to some held under the crown of France; and that, while the latter were compact, the former were scattered through several counties. The English baronies were consequently far more feeble than those on the other side the channel, and hence our feudal monarchy under the Normans and the first Plantagenets was in a much more palmy state than the feudal monarchy of our neighbours under the early princes of the house of Capet. Louis VI. and VII. had but the shadow of royalty; the Williams and the early Henries grasped a real sceptre. It may seem inconsistent with this that at the period in question the French monarch ruled without a parliament, while the Norman princes convoked the peers of the realm to aid them in conducting affairs; but this very difference, in fact, arose from the independence of the French and the subjection of the English crown vassals. The barons of France cared not to attend upon the king's council, since no law emanating thence could bind them without their personal consent; but the barons of England were constrained to attend upon the royal summons, for if they remained absent, they were still bound to obey any laws that might be made. Another characteristic of English feudalism remains to be noticed. In addition to the usual feudal incidents, such as reliefs, fines, alienations, and aids, two other customs, which probably had before existed in Normandy, prevailed in England. These were, certain claims connected with wardship and marriage. The lord of the fief was the guardian of the heir during his minority; he had the custody of his person and his lands, without rendering any account of the use made of the profits. In the case of a male, the guardianship continued till the minor arrived at the age of twenty-one; in the case of a female, it terminated at the age of fourteen, when the young lady could marry, and her husband do suit and service for her. But before she attained that age, her lord could offer her in marriage to whom he pleased, provided it was without disparagement or inequality of rank; and if she refused the alliance, she had to forfeit from her estate just so much as the person to whom her hand had been offered would have given for the match. The penalty was still more severe if she married without the baron's consent; for, in that case, a fine, equal to double what an alliance with her was valued at, was exacted by her ruthless sovereign. In addition to all this, the feudal lord in England extended his authority over the daughters of all his vassals, not allowing any of them to be married but on condition of the payment of a certain sum; so that marriages yielded him an abundant harvest of revenue.

These incidents were, obviously, oppressive to no small degree. They fell with especial weight on the immediate tenants of the crown; and so intolerable were the exactions of royalty, so rapacious and unjust was the whole of the regal administration, from William to John, that, at length, the system could be endured no longer; and though, singly, the English barons might be weak, united, they formed an effectual breakwater against the proud surges of monarchical oppression, and obtained the grand palladium of English liberty, the great charter. That venerable instrument materially modified the feudal demands, limiting reliefs to a certain sum, restraining the wastes committed by guardians in chivalry, forbidding the disparagement of female wards in matrimony, and securing widows from compulsory marriages. Beside these special provisions, in reference to feudal claims, the principles of our constitution which are there laid down, such as the _habeas corpus_, trial by jury, and the necessity of the people's consent to their own taxation, tended to modify the working of feudalism; in short, they struck at its vital principle, drained out its very life blood, and left it slowly to expire. The charter was admirably contrived; its principles were slowly developed. "Its effect," says Mackintosh, "was not altogether unlike the grand process by which nature employs snows and frosts to cover her delicate germs, and to hinder them from rising above the earth, till the atmosphere has acquired the mild and equal temperature which insures them against blights."

Feudalism is a system which has borne a conspicuous part in the civilisation of Europe. It has left a visible impression on the laws and habits of our own country. We find its remains, we feel its lingering power in various directions. The lawyer traces its influence on our jurisprudence; the statesman sees its impress on our constitution; the antiquary recognises its relics in many of our customs; and the philosopher detects its spirit as an element in the mass of society, which has not yet lost all its power. As the disintegrated portions of primary rocks may be discovered in recently formed strata--as fragments of ancient structures may be sometimes seen wrought up in buildings of modern date; so portions of the feudal system may be discovered in our present laws and institutions, and may be seen staring forth in the political and social fabric of the present day.

SECTION IV.

ESTIMATE OF THE EFFECTS OF FEUDALISM.

Certain evils often attributed to feudalism did not spring from it. For instance, slavery was not its offspring, nor indeed an integral part of it. The lord and the vassal were the parties who formed the feudal relationship; and though the latter was not a freeman, according to our views, he was not a slave, but had certain personal and social rights, which his lord was bound to respect and preserve. Slavery of an abject kind existed in Europe long before the feudal system appeared. It existed in the free republic of Rome; in Greece, too, the cradle of liberty; and while Athens knelt at the shrine of freedom, and poets, and philosophers, and orators, were her ministering priests, there were thousands of slaves within the narrow limits of Attica. The Germans had slaves; the Saxons had slaves--all Europe had slaves. Feudalism found slavery in existence, and attached it to itself. The system was not inimical to it, but it did not create the evil.

In relation to the social disorders of the middle ages, the insecurity of property, the personal dangers, the robberies and cruelties which prevailed, it may be remarked, that the feudal system, if it did not quench them, did not kindle them; and if, in some cases, it should appear that the system fanned them into greater violence, it also appears that, in other cases, it checked their operation. The state of society, at the commencement of the feudal era, was most deplorable. It was disorganized and dissolved. The Roman empire was shattered to pieces. Monarchy made some abortive attempts to mould the scattered fragments of the social fabric into form, but failed. The kingdom of Charlemagne shone like a meteor, and vanished. The church sunk in ignorance and corruption. The religious power almost entirely left it. The times were awful. Men's hearts failed them because of fear. The moral heavens blazed with strange portents, and many cried, "The end of all things is at hand." Amidst all this disorder, the feudal principle was developing itself; on this scene of social strife and misery it had to work; this was the theatre of its operation, the field of its career; and when it terminated its course, it certainly left Europe better than at the beginning.

Mr. Hallam has shown that feudalism accomplished two great political results. In Germany, it stood in the way of the ambitious designs of an Otho and a Barbarossa, and prevented the establishment of a great empire,--a powerful despotism, crushing the seeds of commerce and liberty, and retarding, perhaps for ages, the progress of civilisation. In France, it prevented the dismemberment of the monarchy, and its reduction into a number of petty and despotic sovereignties; for "who can doubt that some of the counts of France would have thrown off all connexion with the crown, if the slight dependence of vassalage had not been substituted for legitimate subjection to a sovereign?"

As to its moral influence, it cannot be denied that feudalism nurtured fidelity and gratitude. It also inspired a sense of honour--far different, indeed, from a sense of duty, especially as it exists in a Christian's mind, and having in it much of lofty pride--yet it may be justly observed, "Was it not much that such honour could be felt, and its dictates obeyed in so tumultuous an age?" "Everything is to be measured according to its times."[1] And further, there can be little doubt that, in the interior of the old castles, where the baron, or knight, during intervals of peace, had no society but his own family, domestic life and the condition of women were in some instances improved, contributing toward the inspiration of that lofty and pure affection, which has shed so beautiful an influence over modern civilisation. The soft charities of home thus sprung up, like myrtles, among the dark wild rocks of feudal society, relieving and adorning them with its snow-white blossoms.

At the same time, it generated and sustained many unhallowed and anti-social habits and principles, especially, war, injustice, and revenge. The records of the middle ages contain the expression of sentiments, and the history of deeds of the most unchristian and revolting character. The worst passions of the human mind are seen playing around the system, like lightning around the summit of one of its hoary castles at midnight. If flowers are growing at the base, there are weeds of deadly poison too. It must be allowed also, that, as, a political system, it was most defective; it left almost everything to the mercy of the ruler, made no provision for the rights of the governed, supplied no constitutional guarantee for social order, and might easily prove an engine of oppression and cruelty to those who were so disposed to employ it.

It could, of necessity, last but for a season, being a transition state of things. It evidently contained the elements of its own dissolution, and nurtured a spirit of resistance which was sure at length to destroy it. On the whole, it was a rough process of discipline, tending to social improvement: and the thoughtful and devout mind will recognise in it, a course of things somewhat analogous to what obtains in the government of nature, whereby the tempest purifies the atmosphere, and the snows of winter prepare for the bloom of spring.

[1] British Quarterly Review, vol. i. 255.